THE SPOKESMAN. Cordesman puts together an interesting argument that the United States should adopt a stance of "strategic patience" toward Iraq and maintain the surge into early 2008. The idea of "strategic patience" is for the American military to focus on supporting efforts to establish political stability and fight insurgents primarily in Sunni areas. "Strategic patience" is a consensus concept articulated by Ambassador Crocker, the American military, and Iraqi politicians. However, it appears to me that the leading figures in this consensus are the American military and that what the military is seeking is Congressional authority for the "strategic patience" concept.
US officials and officers also made it clear they were looking at an FY2009 submission that would lay out clearer plans requiring Congressional approval of longer-term war funding in the budget submission that must be made early next year. This would allowthe Congress to look beyond the present partisan divide, and provide the basis for a Congressional and national debate on “strategic patience” and how best to deal with future US policy and actions.
In this context, the significance of Cordesman's "The Tenuous Case" is that the military is communicating their policy preferences directly to Congress and opinion-makers without going through the Bush administration. In fact, "strategic patience" is not the Bush administration's concept. Likewise, there's no record of Bush, VP Cheney, Secretary of Defense Gates, National Security Adviser Hadley, and Condoleeza Rice advocating "strategic patience." Instead, it looks like "strategic patience" is a military concept and that the military is doing an end run around the Bush administration by promoting "strategic patience" to Congress through Cordesman.
THE DANGER. From the perspective of Cordesman's report, one has to wonder if the military is looking for permission from Congress to enact its own Iraq policy. It certainly is clear is that Cordesman has just as little respect for the Bush administration in Washington as he has for the Maliki government in Baghdad.
The US national security team in Washington is clearly ineffective and lacking in core competence. Real leadership has to come from the field and the country team, and has to be exercised in a context where the issue is the ability to present workable plans for sustained action – not purely military situation reports or efforts to rush various benchmarks. (p 23)Although I believe that Cordesman is speaking for the military in relation to the strategy of strategic patience, I'm not sure whether the American "country team" in Iraq shares Cordesman's contempt for the "US national security team," "the national security council," the disfunctional economic aid apparatus, (19) and the Panglossian fantasies (15) coming from the civilian leadership in Washington.
To the extent that the military does agree with Cordesman (or he is simply expressing their view), I believe that we're at a somewhat dangerous fork in the road. One of the cornerstones of American democracy is civilian control over the military and there is at least some chance that the Bush administration's control over the American military in Iraq is slipping. Perhaps the Bush administration has signed off on "strategic patience," but it appears that the military is acting independently to promote their preferred strategy. It also appears from Cordesman's report that the military in Iraq doesn't trust the civilians in the Bush administration to take a competent approach to policy in Iraq, provide overall policy guidance for the military effort, or even make a coherent case for the military's efforts to the American public.
In my opinion, it's not a safe thing to have a large, well-armed, and superbly trained military that views civilian leadership as dysfunctional and incompetent and begins to act independently. I'm not saying that I believe that the American military is on the verge of revolt or a coup. At the same time, I do believe that contempt for civilian leadership is one of the elements that goes into a military coup. While not imminently dangerous, the situation does bear watching.
Posts
13 comments:
I'm not sure if you intend it, but this reads to me like you feel the military is heading towards revolt. I guess the last line is pretty clear on that.
I just don't see how that conclusion can be reached here. If I accept your position that the military is using Cordesman to communicate their position, it is still a long way to freeing itself of civilian control. Using Cordesman in this way, as an end around to Bush, could be considered an attempt to sell a position to that civilian control, but I don't see much else in it.
Your position also seems to dismiss the possibility that Cordesman came to his positions independently without making a case for that conclusion.
I certainly have more work to do on this. But here's the short version of what I think.
1. That Cordesman is expressing the American military's view of the situation in Iraq.
2. That the military is seeking to address Congress and the public directly through Cordesman.
3. That the military is not clearing their statements or plans with the White House.
4. I don't think the military is getting ready to revolt, but I do believe that such political independence is dangerous because it's one of the conditions that could make a revolt or coup possible.
3. That the military is not clearing their statements or plans with the White House.
The military respect for chain-of-command is probably deeper than any other cultural value. The quickest way for a soldier, of any rank, to find themsleves in trouble is to violate that chain(even whe doing so proves them right, the act still may carry with administrative punishment) Commander's doing so would soon find a pleasantly worded suggestion that they pursue civilian employment.
The first two points may be true, but they also serve the interests of the Bush administration by making the case for continued involvement. It isn't necessary to take that line of thinking any further.
To Ef, I revised and linked up the above post. As you point out, there is a strong likelihood that independent action on the part of the military serves the interests of the Bush administration. But, it's still not a good thing because it functions to undermine the principle of civilian control.
Black helicopters are hovering nearby. Careful. Be very careful.
I'll remember that respect when I remember the exciting leaks during the Clinton administration. The politicization of the Armed Forces started apace with MacArthur, but has become just horrific under Bush. Peter Pace, Patreaus, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner (5 minutes before his posting to Baghdad, he worked in the freakin' White House.
This is something to be very concerned with. As you remember from reading PW, there are quite a few military men who have taken sides in America's partisan battle. You're telling me a guy as nuts as RTO Trainer would listen to a Democrat?
At any rate, any real problems are down the road a bit and, as the right wing Christians who ran the Air Force Academy found out, we still value non-partisanship. Let's hope that chain of command holds when Hillary is giving the orders
The US military cannot win the war in Iraq. It has to be won by the Iraqi government and Iraqi politicians. That cannot happen as long as Iraq is under US occupation.
timb - Why wouldn't the chain of command hold if Hillary is elected? I served under President Clinton, and would never have dreamed of questioning his orders. Your ignorance of the military is astounding.
JD
See Gary Aldrich, JD.
You served, as a Sgt? Cpl? Master Sgt. Lt? The Joint Chiefs and folks like them are a different matter. See gays in the military.
Until then, JD, just giving your view of the situation is anecdotal, ahistorical, and unpersuasive.
Well, since we military types are a bunch of crazed totalitarians hell bent on the overthrow of our government, but narrowly riegned back only by the courage of the liberal members of government that risk their very lives by doing so, and not a diverse cross section of the American public made up of individuals of nearly all political leanings, what timb is saying makes some sense.
Speaking again of the upper military folks I mentioned in my first post. Quit changing the subject and accusing people of having beliefs you have no idea if they have.
Let's explain it with history: Sulla, the first Roman to revolt against the public, was a general. So was Caesar. So was Napoleon. Who represented American forces at the Siege of Boston? Washington, a former colonel of militia.
It's the generals who matter, ef, and we have a crop of them who appear to be as partisan as you are. Your partisanship doesn't bother me, Pace's does.
Oh, and to hold of your outraged stampede, clearly Washington's leadership and acumen were keys tot he success of the Revolution and that was and is a good thing (I can't believe I have to make points like this, but, as you showed earlier, the goal posts move on these arguments).
But their partisanship, for those that are partisan, goes b.o.t.h. ways.
Should I repeat that here for you several times?
Finally, what in the hell does Washington have to do with this thread? I've seen some strange tangents before, but....
Name a Democratic General...did you come up with more than Wesley Clarke?
Washington came into the discussion as a vehicle illustrating how politicized colonels and generals head revolution.
Post a Comment